DATTU, J. ( 1 ) FACTS and law involved in these petitions are common and therefore, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed off by this common order. ( 2 ) PETIIIONERS were allottees of residential houses by respondent- The Life Insurance Corporation of India. Since there was a breach of terms and conditions of letter of allotment by the allottees, the respondent - Corporation has cancelled the allotment and has reallotted the houses to the private respondents herein. It is this action of respondent Corporation, which is questioned by the petitioners in these proceedings. ( 3 ) BRIEF facts are:the Life Insurance Corporation of India had advertised a scheme for sale of row houses, built by it in Jeevanbheemanagar, Bangalore, on the lands sold to it by Bangalore Development Authority. The details of the scheme are set out in the brochure circulated by it to its policy holders. The Brochure contains the terms and conditions of the allotment and sale of the said houses. Pursuant to the advertisement, petitioners and others, who are policy holders had applied for the allotment of the houses. The draw of lots for deciding the allotments was held by respondents - Corporation. Petitioners were one of the successful applicants in the said draw. The corporation had also prepared the contingency list for allotment in the event of successful applicants declining to accept the allotment or not complying with the terms of allotment. ( 4 ) AFTER draw of lots, the respondent Corporation had issued letters of allotment dated 29. 4. 1995 and 7. 11. 1994 to the petitioner in W. P. No. 30328/1995 and W. P. No. 12560/1995 respectively. The letter of allotment sets out the terms and conditions of the allotment, subject to the other terms in the scheme found in the brochure. In the letter of allotment, the cost of the house was fixed and it was further informed to the allottees that the first installment of 25% has to be paid within one month from the date of allotment and the remaining 75% of the amount to be paid within three months from the date of letter of allotment. In the letter of allotment, the cost of the house was fixed and it was further informed to the allottees that the first installment of 25% has to be paid within one month from the date of allotment and the remaining 75% of the amount to be paid within three months from the date of letter of allotment. By Clause (3) of the letter of allotment, it was made known to the allottees that if they fail to pay the entire amount and comply with the terms of allotment within three months from the date of letter of allotment, the allotment is liable to the cancelled at the discretion of the Corporation and the Corporation reserves its right to allot the said house to any person without further notice to the allottees and the request for extension of time will not be entertained by the Corporation. By other clauses in the letter of allotment, it was intimated to the allottees, possession of the house and execution of deed of conveyance will be done only upon the full payment of cost price of the house. It was also stipulated that in the event or the allottees neglecting to pay the balance sale price and to comply with the terms of allotment, the allotment is liable to be cancelled without notice to the allottees and 50% of the earnest money deposit made by the allottees along with the application for allotment shall stand forfeited to the Corporation and it is only the balance amount would be refunded without interest. ( 5 ) PURSUANT to the offer made in the letter of allotment issued by the Corporation, petitioners had accepted the offer by affixing their signatures to the consent letter and also by depositing the first installment as required in the allotment letter. Petitioners for reasons best known to them did not deposit 75% of the remaining amount within three months as required under the letter of allotment. After the expiry of three months period in the first case and a few days prior to in the second case, they had approached the respondents for enlargement of the time to make deposit of the balance amount. After the expiry of three months period in the first case and a few days prior to in the second case, they had approached the respondents for enlargement of the time to make deposit of the balance amount. In view of breach of terms and conditions of letter of allotment, the respondent Corporation has cancelled the allotment and has refunded the amounts deposited by the petitioner after forfeiting a part of earnest money deposit by their communications to the petitioners dated 3. 8. 1995 and 28. 2. 1995 respectively. After such cancellation of allotment due to non-compliance of terms and conditions of the scheme and letter of allotment, the respondent- Corporation has allotted the said houses to the eligible persons in the contingency list which was prepared earlier. Aggrieved by the cancellation of allotment of house and its reallotment to others by the respondent - corporation, petitioners are before this Court in petitions filed under article 226 of the Constitution, interalia seeking appropriate reliefs and directions. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsels appearing for petitioners contend that the action of the respondent - Corporation in cancelling the allotment of houses made in favour of the petitioners is illegal and without authority of law and the respondents have failed to exercise their powers and discretion vested in them by extending the time for payment cf 75% of the balance of amount stipulated in the letters of allotment in deserving cases. It is nextly asserted that the respondent corporation without granting extension of time sought for by the petitioners could not have cancelled the allotment of the house made to the petitioners and therefore, their action is wholly arbitrary, illegal, unfair and unjust and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. After such cancellation of allotment, allotting the same houses to the private respondents in the petitions smacked with mala fides and extraneous consideration. Therefore, they request this Court to set aside the impugned communications, annul the reallotment made and direct the respondent Corporation to reallot the same houses to the petitioners or in the alternative atleast one of the vacant houses in row houses in Jeevanbheemanagar, bangalore. Therefore, they request this Court to set aside the impugned communications, annul the reallotment made and direct the respondent Corporation to reallot the same houses to the petitioners or in the alternative atleast one of the vacant houses in row houses in Jeevanbheemanagar, bangalore. If no relief can be granted to the petitioners, atlest direct the respondent Corporation to refund the amounts deposited by the petitioners, pursuant to the letter of allotment of houses by the respondent - Corporation with interest, without forfeiting a part of earnest money deposited. ( 7 ) RESPONDENT - Corporation and the private respondents have filed their detailed statement of objections, resisting the reliefs sought for by the petitioners and they not only justify their action in cancelling the allotment of houses made to the petitioners for noncompliance of terms and conditions envisaged in the letter of allotment but also under the scheme contained in the brochure circulated to all the policy holders and also the reallotment made in favour of private respondents. Apart from this, they contend that the subject matter of the petitions being the contract of allotment of a house between the petitioners and the respondents, this Court should decline to exercise its discretion under Article 226 to determine the questions arising out of parties contractual rights and obligations and a contractual obligation which is not statutory cannot be enforced by way of Writ Petition. ( 8 ) AFTER carefully considering the rival contentions canvassed by learned Counsels for the parties, in my opinion, petitioners have not made out a case for interference of this Court to grant reliefs sought in the petitions. ( 9 ) THE High Court normally does not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, to enforce a civil liability arising out of contract and leaves it to the aggrieved person to agitate the question in a civil suit for that purpose. But, if the facts pleaded before the Court are of such nature, which does not involve any complicated questions of fact needing elaborate investigation of the same. High Court could also exercise its jurisdiction under Articte 226 of the Constitution in such matter. But, if the facts pleaded before the Court are of such nature, which does not involve any complicated questions of fact needing elaborate investigation of the same. High Court could also exercise its jurisdiction under Articte 226 of the Constitution in such matter. The Apex Court while explaining the legal principles in HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM corporation LTD AND ANOTHER vs DOLLY DAS was pleased to observe as under:"we may now advert to the contention that the writ remedy is not appropriate in this case, where interpretation of a contract arises in relation to immovable property and in working such contract or relief thereof or any other full out thereto may have the effect of giving rise to an action in tort or for damages, the appropriate remedy would be a civil suit. But, if the facts pleaded before the Court are of such nature which do not involve any complicated questions of fact needing elaborate investigation of the same, the High Court could also exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in such matters. There can be no hard and fast rule in such matters. " ( 10 ) IN KUMARI SHRILEKHA Vldyarthl AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF U. P. AND OTHERS, the Apex Court was pleased to observe:"even in matters pertaining to State's contracts with private parties, the policy must satisfy the requirements of Article 14 and if it fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional. State's constitutional obligation coexists with contractual obligation. State acts for public good and in public interest and its public character is not changed merely because statutory or contractual rights are also available to the other party. State has to act justly, fairly and reasonably even in contractual field, more so when bargaining power is unequal in standard form of contracts with the State. " ( 11 ) KEEPING in view this well established legal principles, let menow notice the fact situation in the present case. The facts are more or less undisputed. Allotment of the house by respondent corporation is not in controversy. It is not disputed by the petitioners that they had not fulfilled the terms and conditions of the letter of allotment, which they had accepted after signing the consent letter and by depositing 25% of the cost of the house fixed in the letter of allotment. Allotment of the house by respondent corporation is not in controversy. It is not disputed by the petitioners that they had not fulfilled the terms and conditions of the letter of allotment, which they had accepted after signing the consent letter and by depositing 25% of the cost of the house fixed in the letter of allotment. They only contend that their request for enlargement of the time for payment of remaining amount should not have been rejected and allotment of the house made earlier should not have been cancelled. It is difficult to accept this assertion. It is settled law that when parties enter into contract, they have to abide by the terms and conditions of the same. In the instant case, the letter of appointment clearly stipulates that the allottee shall deposit 25% of the purchase price along with the consent letter within 30 days from the date of letter of allotment and the remaining 75 % of the purchase price within three months from the date of letter of allotment. The allotment letter further stipulates that if the allottee fails to deposit the aforesaid amount, the allotment is liable to be cancelled and the corporation would be entitled to allot the said house to any other person without notice to the allottee. These covenants in the letter of allotment gives a clear indication that time is the primary essence of contract. The condition imposed is a reasonable condition. The respondent Corporation is engaged in providing life coverage to its policy holders by collecting premiums from them. The fund so collected apart from paying life coverage, is also being invested by the Corporation in socio economic programmes in the State. One such scheme is to provide low cost houses to its policy holders. The Corporation keeping this object in view, has constructed a row of houses in Jeevanbheemanagar, by investing huge funds on the lands sold to them by the Bangalore Development Authority. The corporation has to ensure speedy realisation of the investments made in the interest of the policy holders. Therefore, time schedules fixed in the letter of allotment and in the scheme contained in the brochure are all reasonable and in the larger interest of the policy holders and in my opinion, satisfies the requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution. The corporation has to ensure speedy realisation of the investments made in the interest of the policy holders. Therefore, time schedules fixed in the letter of allotment and in the scheme contained in the brochure are all reasonable and in the larger interest of the policy holders and in my opinion, satisfies the requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 12 ) IN the present petitions it is an admitted fact that petitioners failed and neglected to deposit the balance of 75 % of the purchase price within three months from the date of letter of allotment. The corporation, keeping in view, the time prescribed in the allotment letter in the interest of Corporation and its policy holders has cancelled the allotment of the houses made in favour of the petitioners and allotted the same to a member in the contingency list, which they had prepared by draw of lots for allotment of houses on the same day, when they had prepared the list of successful allottees, in the event of allottees in the main list, declining the allotment or not complying with the terms of allotment. The contract determines the rights and obligations of the parties interse. The parties are bound by the contract. Any breach of condition of the contract, by a party to the contract, the other party may rescind the contract. In the instant case, that is what that has been done. Nothing unusual about it. Therefore, it cannot be said that their action is either arbitrary, illegal, invalid and smacked with mala fides. Their action, in my opinion, is informed with reasons and guided in the interest of the Corporation and its policy holders. ( 13 ) THE liability of the insurer under the Insurance Act has astatutory sanction. The relationship of the insurer and the insured is created under a contract but the obligation of the insurer therefrom is arising under a Statute and therefore, the liability of the Life insurance Corporation can be enforced by a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the liability of the Insurance Company in the matter of allotment of houses to its policy holders does not arise under the Statute namely, under Insurance Act, 1938. However, the liability of the Insurance Company in the matter of allotment of houses to its policy holders does not arise under the Statute namely, under Insurance Act, 1938. Therefore, even assuming that there is slight arbitrariness in the action of the respondent Corporation since the contract between the parties is not governed by any Statute, the contract falls within the domain of private law and outside the realm of public law and therefore, in my opinion, the remedy for the petitioners is in the Civil Court and at any rate not in the writ Court, I draw support to the aforesaid reasoning from the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF UP. AND ANOTHER vs BRIDGE AND ROOF company (INDIA) LIMITED. In the said decision, the Court was pleased to observe:"the contract between the parties is a contract in the realm 01 private law. It is not a statutory contract. It is governed by the provisions of the Contract Act or may be, also by certain provisions of the Sale of Goods Act. Any dispute relating to interpretation of the terms and conditions of such contract cannot be agitated and could not have been agitated, in a Writ Petition. That is a matter either for arbitration as provided by the contract or for Civil Court as the case may be. " ( 14 ) NEXTLY, the learned Counsel for the petitioners request this Court to direct the respondent Corporation to reailot any one of the houses in row of houses in Jeevanbhimanager, which is still vacant. On instruction, Sri M. L Visveshwaraiah, learned Counsel, submits that ail the houses covered by the scheme under which petitioners had applied for allotment have been allotted and sold and there is no vacant house available. In view of this submission, I cannot consider the request made by the petitioners learned Counsel. ( 15 ) IN so far as the request made by the learned Counsel for petitioners to direct the respondent Corporation to refund the full amount of earnest money deposited by the petitioners at the time of allotment of houses is concerned, in my opinion, even this prayer cannot be granted. ( 15 ) IN so far as the request made by the learned Counsel for petitioners to direct the respondent Corporation to refund the full amount of earnest money deposited by the petitioners at the time of allotment of houses is concerned, in my opinion, even this prayer cannot be granted. In the letter of allotment issued by the petitioners, it was specifically stated that on default of "any of the terms and conditions of allotment by them, the Corporation would be entitled to forfeit 50% of their earnest money deposit and no other liability was fastened on them. By accepting the offer made in the fetters of allotment, the contract had been concluded between the parties. One who has accepted the contract with a full knowledge of terms and conditions attached to the contract cannot be permitted to wriggle out of the contractual obligations. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no justification in the request made by the learned Counsels for petitioners. That apart, no writ or directions could be issued at the instance of the petitioners to the opposite party to violate the terms of contract. A party to the contract cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to prevent the other party from taking action for the breach of the terms and conditions of the contract committed by them. ( 16 ) LASTLY, in the Writ Petitions filed, petitioners make a very bad allegation that the allotment of the houses made by respondent - Corporation in favour of private respondents was actuated with malafides and for extraneous consideration. This accusation has no basis whatsoever. The allegation made by the petitioners is without any factual foundation. Therefore, the same cannot be accepted and requires to be rejected. In as much as, the respondent Corporation after cancellation of allotment of house made in favour of the petitioners due to noncompliance of the contractual obligation, have aliotted the same houses to the next eligible persons and the allottees have not only paid the purchase price fixed by the respondent corporation but also have got the sale deed registered from the corporation in their favour. They are in possession and enjoyment of the same from last five years. Therefore, the question of cancelling the allotment made in their favour does not arise. They are in possession and enjoyment of the same from last five years. Therefore, the question of cancelling the allotment made in their favour does not arise. ( 17 ) THE learned Counsel urges one more minor issue about there Section of the request made by the petitioners for enlargement of the time to make deposit of 75% of the purchase price fixed by 'respondent-Corporation. It is urged that the rejection of the reasonable request made by the petitioners is not only arbitrary but wholly unjust. Petitioner in W. P. No. 30328/1995 assigns, absence of her husband in the country for seeking extension of time and the other petitioner in W. P. No. 12560/1995 does not even assign any cogent reason while seeking extension of time to pay the balance of amount. Assuming such a discretion as there to the respondent corporation, since petitioners had not assigned any cogent and justifiable reasons, the respondent-Corporation, in my opinion, has rightly rejected the request made by these petitioners for extension of time to pay the balance of purchase price stipulated in the letter of allotment. Therefore, the action of the respondent Corporation cannot be characterised as either arbitrary or illegal. ( 18 ) IN the result, there is no merit in these Writ Petitions and they are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are dismissed. Rule discharged. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly. --- *** --- .